- 27 -
“The Office of Appeals will contact you to schedule a hearing.
Your hearing may be held either in person, by telephone, or by
correspondence.”6 In the instant case, the exchange of
correspondence between the Appeals officer and petitioners,
ending with the Appeals officer’s offer to discuss other matters
constitutes a hearing as contemplated in Publication 1660.
I conclude that section 301.6330-1T, Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., supra, is a permissible construction of section
6330.
8. Conclusion
As expressed supra section II.C.1., I conclude that we
cannot introduce a general oral interview requirement into the
proceedings that respondent has established for section 6330(b)
hearings, and that respondent has established permissible
procedures that were followed in this case.
6 Chief Counsel Advisory 200123060 (June 8, 2001), referred
to by some of the dissenters, states: “Appeals would strive to
grant, at a minimum, face-to-face conferences to all requesting
taxpayers.” The advisory states a goal, not a mandate. The
record in Watson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-213, contains a
memorandum from respondent’s counsel emphasizing that the
advisory expresses an aspiration. Moreover, the usual view of
this Court is that even revenue rulings, an official publication
of respondent’s (which the advisory is not), get no deference,
since they are merely opinions of a lawyer in the agency. See,
e.g., N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 341, 350
(1995), affd. 115 F.3d, 506 (7th Cir. 1997). But see United
States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), for a discussion of
the deference, less than Chevron deference, owed to certain
agency interpretations of a statute.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011